Loading ITAT cases…
38 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found a contradiction in the CIT(A)'s observations regarding the rejection of the letter dated 26-12-2011. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the loss arising from foreign currency fluctuation on the ECB loan, utilized for acquiring assets in India, should be added to the actual cost of the assets for the purpose of depreciation. This decision was based on Supreme Court precedents regarding the treatment of such fluctuations.
The Tribunal held that the loss arising from foreign currency fluctuation on the ECB loan, utilized for acquiring assets in India, should be added to the actual cost of the assets for the purpose of depreciation. This decision was based on Supreme Court precedents regarding the treatment of such fluctuations.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence, including ledger accounts and confirmations, showing the existence of the liability and its subsequent payment. The AO's doubts about the genuineness of the evidence were not substantiated.
The Tribunal held that a 100% addition on account of bogus purchases is not warranted. The addition should be limited to the difference in the gross profit rate between genuine and 'hawala' purchases.
The Tribunal held that a 100% addition on account of bogus purchases is not warranted. The addition should be limited to the difference in the gross profit rate between genuine and hawala purchases.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the opening stock valuation and the financial statements. It found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly examined the rectified financial statements. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) properly examined the rectified financial statements showing the correct opening stock. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration to determine the actual loss.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted proper inquiries, including recording statements and verifying transactions with the bank and the company. The AO had also shared information with the AO of the firm involved in the unaccounted purchases, who subsequently made additions. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted proper inquiries, including recording statements and verifying transactions with the bank and the company. The AO had also shared information with the AO of the firm involved in the unaccounted purchases, who subsequently made additions. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by using total assets as the denominator and that the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments. Therefore, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did avail regional support services and that the costs were correctly allocated. The mark-up charged on these services was found to be within the tolerance range, thus meeting the ALP criteria.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did avail regional support services and that the costs were correctly allocated. The mark-up charged on these services was found to be within the tolerance range, thus meeting the ALP criteria.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present her case before the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present her case on merits.
The Tribunal, with no objection from the Revenue, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, having no objection from the Revenue, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the application filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw their appeals. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted because the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted because the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all details and explained the legal basis for its deductions, and mere disallowance of a claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum additions are deleted by a higher appellate authority, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) on those additions cannot survive. The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., stating that a mere claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds (capital and reserves) exceeding the interest-free advances, then no disallowance of interest on borrowings is warranted to that extent. However, any advances beyond the available interest-free funds would be considered to be out of interest-bearing funds, necessitating a proportionate disallowance.
The Tribunal held that it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, citing the Supreme Court decision in T.R.F. Limited. The assessee had provided ledger accounts and tax invoices demonstrating that the amounts were recognized as income and subsequently written off.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions as required under Section 68. The creditor's denial of lending the money contradicted her affidavit, establishing the assessee's failure to prove the creditworthiness.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and sent the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient funds to pay the tax liability on the due dates and that Section 273B was not applicable for penalty under Section 221. However, considering the facts, the penalty was further reduced.